Felix | Lawyers to the rescue

We all know that governments would rather we were not here. Ours is a thankless and unappreciated role in society. Barristers tend to make a nuisance of themselves: vultures making miserable people even more unhappy for totally worthless reasons. It will be all so much easier when all the prosecuting is done in-house by the CPS and all the defending is done cheaply by solicitors and in-house advocates who may not actually be very good at it, but that does not matter so long as it costs as little ?as possible.

There are, presumably, the odd occasions when governments do like barristers '“ when a government is in a fix then suddenly there is a point to a specialist advocate who really knows their stuff and can fight the case as if it is their last. On these occasions a government is not suggesting that one of its lawyers from the office can pop down to court and do a rushed job on it to save a bit of cash. It's a funny old thing, self-interest. On holidays years ago among friends, inevitably the conversation got round to giving the lawyers a kicking, the most vociferous never saw a situation where they might need representing '“ say in a dispute as a small business, trying to get custody of their children, or being wrongly accused of a crime. Suddenly then, blessed of course with the insight that truth and justice is on their side, the lawyer has her place.

If a government wants to truly consider whether in fact there is a point to advocates, it could look at its select committees. It is an odd thing, but if someone is ill we usually go to '“ a doctor. Yes, doctors are great '“ they have spent years at medical school, then years in training, they have passed lots of exams and have been let loose on patients in a staged, phased way. Oh, and doctors are great because they do continuing professional development, and they treat each patient as if that patient were their only patient. No, the government minister doesn't suggest that maybe they will have a go at taking their own appendix out, or formulating a treatment plan for their cancer.

Clueless cross-examining

So, let's look at these select committees. The point is, though I am sure they are good at many things, including what they are supposed to do, what they are all rubbish at is questioning witnesses. Time and again the media slavers over the prospect of a Murdoch or a banker or a former prime minister facing a 'grilling' by a select committee. And when it happens it reminds me of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition '“ a bit of pummelling with the soft cushions. It is not that they are not nice '“ they can be really, really cross with some witnesses. Some select committee members prepare assiduously their sound-bites that are comments not questions '“ one suspects '“ for the benefit of the committee member with eyes on the Ten O'clock News. Does anyone really think that James Murdoch is going to admit that he is some sort of Mafiosi, or that Bob Diamond is going to say 'Yes you are right '“ I was at it right up to my neck, but I thought that I would get away with it until you made that comment so crossly'? Oh dear, this is not Scooby-Doo, you know.

So these politicians, who actually never debate anything at all (a House of Commons debate isn't a debate, it is a shouting match before a vote on party lines) have not got the first clue how to question a witness. They think they have. They no doubt think that they are brilliant, and it is easy. They think that cross-examination is asking questions crossly. No it is not. What they do is harangue, through comments not questions, and when finally a real question is asked it is never prepared for and is never followed up properly, and the witness rejects the wholly prejudicial, self-serving comment and skips away with nothing lost or given away at all. Nobody lays the ground, lulls the witness into a false sense of security, ever really unpicks what a witness is saying or insists that they answer the question that has ?been asked.

Getting to the truth

That is why if you want to get anywhere close to discovering what has really happened, then for heaven's sake get a barrister to do the questioning. Lord Leveson's inquiry is making some headway because a real advocate is asking the questions. Select committees '“ see Bob Diamond a couple of weeks ago '“ get nowhere. Everyone trails away sadly and disappointedly, because the victim survived the grilling. If this was the Coliseum these lions would be out of a job. The bankers must be praying that the Commons decides to stick with a select committee rather than confront a public inquiry led by a judge.

Oh, and there is one more reason why the barristers and the lawyers are worth hanging on to, that politicians should reflect upon. Of all the great public institutions that are now in the dock '“ the politicians over expenses and general hypocrisy, the media and the press, and now the banks '“ you can bet that whatever else next goes wrong with our great, revered public life, nobody will ever be asking for an inquiry into the judges.

Ah '“ I've just realised why they really don't like us that much, it isn't just because they think we cost too much, it's because we are just better than them.